First, Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act, sections of which gave the President the authority to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans without trial or charge. The language was revised because of strong condemnation from the American people. But now a new bill has emerged that poses yet another threat to the American citizenry.

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

The new law would change a part of US Code 1481 which can be read in full here. Compare 3166 to 1481 and the change is small. The new section makes no reference to being convicted as it does in section (7). So even though the language of the NDAA has been revised to exclude American citizens, the US government merely has to strip Americans of their citizenship and the NDAA will apply. And they will be able to do so without convicting the accused in a court of law.

I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial. This certainly must be questioned by American citizens. The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.

53 Comments

As I said on the podcast on Monday, what makes us so special that we blindly assume we can never be taken over by unscrupulous politicians and robbed of our freedoms? We have become a nation of sheep and we vote in people who repeatedly lie to us, and when we CATCH them in lies we turn around and elect them AGAIN, all the time assuming they would never do anything against us.
What protects the people against the evils we have seen so often in other countries, except the people THEMSELVES?
Where is the real and actual protection that says we can never become a dictatorship or oligarchy? The answer is there is NO protection against this when we cede the power of the people to those we elect.
Remember, Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein were originally ELECTED to lead their people.

Fasten your seatbelts… We’re about to time travel right back to the rise of Hitler and 1932. These laws that our government is considering will ruin what remaining freedom the US has. I believe it’s high time to begin getting your plans together to bug out. As in escape to the mountains, swamps, or totally out of the country. The US as we know it is about to end in the next few years. It will be horrible for you & your family if you do not heed the warnings of history. To put this into modern parlance. Dudes! Chancellor Palpatine is about to establish the 1st Galactic Empire right in the Middle of the Freaking US of A!!

The article says, “So even though the language of the NDAA has been revised to exclude American citizens…” WRONG. The NDAA has NOT been so revised. What was excluded in the revision was the REQUIREMENT of the president to hold citizens without trial (as is the case with non-citizens). But the NDAA in another section gives the president the POWER to detain U.S. citizens IF HE CHOOSES. Only the REQUIREMENT of the President to detain citizens has been removed. PLEASE GET THAT STRAIGHT. Detention of U.S. citizens indefinitely, without trial or an attorney is NOW CURRENT LAW.

This article acts as if NDAA no longer applies to citizens. NDAA STILL APPLIES TO CITIZENS PEOPLE. First the media said it didn’t (to get people not to fight it), then they said it did, then Obama said he was gonna veto it (so people wouldn’t fight it), then it turns out Obama was the one who asked for it to apply to citizens in the first place, and he signed it on New Years. IT APPLIES TO US CITIZENS get your facts straight

Whose money does the “green” party accept? Only money from the body (corpus) of each individual donor? Who is George Soros, if not a coporation unto himself? Green Party refuse any bucks from THAT billionaire lately?

You know, if you wanna call out a party for accepting billionaire bribes how about the koch brother and the Republican party? And also no soros does not count as a corporation because he is a person, not a business and that logic applies vise versa

I know this is a little ‘late to this party’ discussion, but you are some-what correct. Soros is not a US Citizen, so in obviousness, does not have a Social Security Card, yet I’m sure has a passport.

Any legal documentation in the US, that has any ‘persons’ name on it is in fact always spelled in all capital letters, which in legal definition, is considered a corporation. All US Citizens have a ‘Strawman’ attached to their human counter-part. SSN’s and citizens (in Birth Certificates) are and have been shown to be sold on the stock market as said corporations. They make it very difficult for the average citizen that does not know exactly what it all means, in LEGAL terms, to become an actual SOVEREIGN citizen / Freeman on the Land. Few have been successful, so it actually can be done. For more explanation and reference, (there are many sites and videos about this issue) check this out, “The Correct Way to Use a Social Security Card:

Even if you don’t think a Green Party candidate will or even can win, every Green Party vote is one that the Democrats will know they’ve lost. Staying home or voting for no one in a presidential race won’t have that same direct effect. If you are a liberal, progressive, lefty or only vote Democrat because the Republican candidate is worse, vote Green instead and actually make a difference with your vote.

the system in which most want to vote in is dead. necrotic rot. has been for years, certainly since 2000. why would any rational person continue to muck around in rotting material. the system is dead, graveyard dead.

What exactly is your point, and on what fact(s) do you base such a bald-facedly stupid comment? Shariah Law would deny all females the right to fornicate with whomever they please. Isn’t that contrary to liberal ideals? Last time I looked, there was NOT one single Republican calling for stoning of females, or outright murder of anyone’s “loose” sister. You are an idiot.

> the EEA allows you to be stripped of your citizenship if you “engage in hostilities against the US.”

It does no such thing. Here’s what 8 USC 1481 looks like now:

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether
by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by
voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the
intention of relinquishing United States nationality–

(1) blah blah blah; or

(2) blah blah blah; or

…

(7) blah blah blah.

Note the critical limitation that applies to all 7 of the numbered items: “by voluntarily performing any of the following acts **with** **the** **intention** **of** **relinquishing** **United** **States** **nationality**”.

The EEA modifies this by adding an 8th item to the list, with all 8 subject to the intent requirement:

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether
by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by
voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the
intention of relinquishing United States nationality–

(1) blah blah blah;

(2) blah blah blah;

…

(7) blah blah blah; or

(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities
against the United States.

and by adding a new section (c):

(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict
subject to the laws of war.

There is another existing law that says with the exception of (a)(6) and (a)(7) above, the acts must be performed outside the US. The EEA adds (a)(8) to that list.

It’s sad that people can’t be bothered to read a very short bill (the whole thing is under half the size of this post) that adds two simple sentences to an existing law that is also short and simple.

note the missing key words,
“IF AND WHEN HE IS CONVICTED”
Read the bill, and read the law this Enemy Expatriation Act will amend if passed, and compare the proposed section (8) to section (7)(same as in criminal in nature). Notice anything different? Dent and Lieberman [or whoever wrote this] left out some pretty important words when they left out IF AND WHEN CONVICTED!
Any act in that section is presumed to be voluntary… the expatriate can refute and attempt to prove the act was not voluntary… the only way they can prove the act did not happen is IN A COURT OF LAW… hence section 7 “IF AND WHEN HE IS CONVICTED”.
Any act in the section is presumed to be voluntary… the expatriate can refute and attempt to prove the act was not voluntary… the only way they can prove the act did not happen is IN A COURT OF LAW… hence section 7 “IF AND WHEN HE IS CONVICTED”.
NO DUE PROCESS… the New American way!
ALSO, NDAA does NOT exclude US citizens from indefinite detention… because existing law does not! The only difference is that detention is required when it comes to non-citizens.

More on NDAA, http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-year-2012-obama-starts-off-fresh.html
SEE WHAT EXPERTS SAY,
National Lawyers Guild condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detention:
“After over a decade of the so-called “War on Terror,” President Barack Obama is about to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. The NDAA permits the indefinite detention of anyone, including citizens of the United States, who “was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, under the law of war until the end of hostilities” – an extremely problematic and vague definition. In addition, it permits the transfer of any detained individuals to any foreign country and trial of such persons before a military tribunal.
The National Lawyers Guild adds its voice to the many others who oppose this legislation. Our opposition is not based solely on the fact that this bill allows indefinite detention of US citizens and residents or that the presumed “battlefield” encompasses the entire globe. We oppose indefinite detention without trial because it is immoral and cruel and because it violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.”
[PLEASE Read the statement in its entirety]
NLG condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detentionhttp://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/nlg-condemns-ndaa-provisions/

You are forgetting that this bill was sponsored by Joe Lieberman. This has nothing to do with right vs left, rather this is a blatant attack, in which BOTH parties are complicit, on our civil liberties. Republicans and Democrats are really just two sides of the same coin, and neither of which has our best interests at heart.

“The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.”

Lieberman isn’t a Republican, and the NDAA/Expatriation Act have broad bipartisan support. Quit trying to force partisanship in an issue for which we should be building a coalition of like-minded citizens of all political leaning.

The evil that took over Germany in the 1930s never really died. It’s been quietly sitting back, regrouping and waiting for the opportunity to rise again. My question is this: who will rescue US after we fall?

This bill only reinforces the previous one to give this government total control of this country without any of that inconvenient DEMOCRACY stuff.
Remember, this citizenship part is aimed directly, deliberately a SPECIFICALLY at Americans. This government doesn’t have the power to strip[ anyone ELSE of their citizenship.
Without our status as American citizens, most of the rights we take for granted are GONE. We essentially become “non-persons”.
For the last 2-1/2 years I have been saying on my show that we MUST vote out every single member of Congress and start fresh with new people who will always know we can vote THEM out too.

Please consider a new era of politics. One in which the American people give more direction to their respective politicians via a politics enabling website that streamlines proposed Bills to the populace, allows polling and voting through technology, and sends the results of the votes to the peoples political representatives in the senate and house so they can properly represent their constituents when it comes to voting on a Bill.

Don’t get too hysterical. The act does require a trial. Subsection (b) says that “[w]henever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”

This has nothing to do with obsession about defense. This is about republican takeover, control, hatred of all things liberal. This is about trumping up charges against OWS protestors, or perhaps someone on Facebook that’s vocal. Maybe it’s about someone that has lots of weapons and is vocal about politics. This is about the fact that Republicans want to win in 2012 and gain control of Congress also. A trial? Give me a break. A trial after you’ve been detained for years? In front of a “republican” judge? This is very dangerous, people. Will we end up in a society where speech is completely repressed because of fear?

Quit blaming one party for the destruction of our freedoms. If you think Obama and the Democrats love freedom and want to proect it, you are beyond naive. Both parties are equally culpable in the accumulation of American tyranny.

There are no conservatives, no liberals. There are only corporate whores – doing as they are told. We no longer have even the pretense of a legitimate government: We have a Corporate Occupational Government – Neofascism.

Absolutely right. There ARE no conservatives or liberals in government. But they have carefully exploited the fears of the liberals and conservatives in the electorate to put them at each others throats (while not looking at the people who exploited them)as the powers-that-be steal our country out from under us while we watch.

Well Said!
Celebrity Oligarchy Government
“Fascism” = and unholy alliance between big-government people and big-business people, as a “ruling-class”, always to the detriment of all other people.?. That kind of ‘Neofascism’?
Just saying, , ,

What the heck is the matter with YOU?!? – this has NOTHING to do with a Republican power-grab. Have you even bothered to read the proposed change or looked at the sponsors? the bill was introduced in the House by a Democrat, and in the Senate, Joe Lieberman is an Independant who usally caucuses with the Democrats (as he was one in the first 2/3’s of his political career). And was it not a Democratic POTUS that signed the NDAA 2012?

Exactly right, James. This bill, like NDAA and the Patriot Act, were strictly BI-partisan in support.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano said on The Daily Show last night, there is only ONE party in this country. They just have Democratic and Republican wings. And this party knows they are in trouble and their approval ratings are abysmally low so it makes perfect sense they would want to clamp down on the people rather than change their ways.
As I said on my podcast, it doesn’t look like a coincidence that they tried to force indefinite detention in a BUDGET bill (but were forced to leave Americans off) and then they come up with a bill that is ONLY aimed at Americans, and both bills in the space of about a month.

“Too hysterical”? How much hysteria, then, is proper? And how should it be measured? “Trial”? What a relief to know (if your interpretation is somewhat accurate) that after being snatched, after disappearing, after being stripped, abused, perhaps flown away to Destination Unknown that you or I or anyone Who Deserves Much Better Treatment may have the luxury of a trial. Undoubtedly you or I etc would be granted a “speedy” trial, eh? Ha ha. Too hysterical.

NO bubbs, NO conviction is required,
That’s why (7) says “IF AND WHEN HE IS CONVICTED” (why do you think they didn’t stick in in section 7, or insert “if and when convicted” in section 8). TO BE ABLE TO EXPATRIATE WITH NO CONVICTION!!!
“any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted…”
The expatriate [or a representative party] can refute AFTER they’ve expatriated. Note, acts are presumed voluntary! The expatriate can refute the claim, after the fact… when they have NO Constitutional Rights!

here’s the part of (b) you omitted:
(b)… Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

The trend of ‘not bothering to convict is more than unconstitutional, it’s dangerous road! Doesn’t that usually mean they don’t have evidence? Detainment and expatriation W/O convicting… To make an allegation of ‘whatever’ and a person can lose their country, and ALL Rights… go to lockup, infinitely… serious stuff America!

NOTE- the article is mistaken as NDAA’s indefinite detention applies to anyone INCLUDING US citizens (required to detain non-citizens). Presidential Signing Statements have NO LEGAL EFFECT!

But I didn’t see the words “court” or “trial” in what you posted. What it look like is more “if you lose your citizenship and it bothers you, YOU have to prove it did.” But it doesn’t say anything about a court of law, and since these legislators are almost all lawyers you would think they would have thought to put that in if they meant that.
You see these bills they write. They could take “have a nice day” and make it into 25 pages. And the reason for that in anything they write is to deliberate remove any ambiguity, or to CREATE ambiguity.

to Jim Smith,
You don’t see “court” or “trial” because ALL acts are presumed voluntary. You really need to read the law it amends but you’ll see 1-6 are obvious voluntary, not criminal like 7 and 8. see below, (7) is current law, (8) is the proposed amendment:
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction: or

(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

What (b) is saying is that all acts are presumed voluntary…(1-6 are not criminal, 7 and 8 are). So the expatriate (or representing party) can refute the act was not voluntary, but they can only refute they did not do the act, or the act did not occur, in a court of law… that is why it says “if and when he is convicted… “in section (7). It does not say that in the proposed amendment… therefore, it does not require conviction. I’m not sure if it would be an administrative procedure… who knows. Gov is making it up as they go along.
here is the bill it hopefully will NOT amendhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

I’m a little tired, and to be honest I’m no legal scholar and my game is plain speaking, but the part:

“the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”

looks to me to say that if you’re nailed for this YOU have to prove you didn’t do it voluntarily. Proving a negative like this seems impossible to me, and the government hold all the cards here.

I’m waiting to see how this dovetails in with the case the government is making about Wikileaks where they’re allowed to make Twitter, Google and another company provide information on any person who contacted Wikileaks for any reason. In other words, this doesn’t look good no matter how you cut it.